Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherie Priest (second nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 03:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Cherie Priest
This article was previously deleted through AfD. A DRV consensus overturned this result in light of new information, for which please consult the DRV. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: as discussed on the DRV, this is anauthor who has published only book yet, but that book is published by a major SF publisher (Tor), the second book will appear in october, the first novel has had multiple independent and major reviews, the author has had interviews in prominent media (though not yet in the truly important ones probably), and the book has won a new literary award which received considerable coverage. Much of that info is missing or unclear from the current article though, so a rewrite / expansion is necessary. The current article gives on cursory reading the impression that we are dealing with a slef publishing blog writer (which would be a good reason for deletion), but she is way past that point now. Fram 14:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, published Tor author. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - as notable as needs be, I've added Barnes and Noble link (which shows some external reviews) to "External links"  Yomangani talk 14:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete One book published, one to appear. A non-notable award, some 300 distinct Ghits many from blogs .  And we cheerfully deleted an Iranian author with 10 published books!    Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  18:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: as has been pointed out recently to me (on another AfD), distinct Google hits are calculated on the first 1,000 indistinct Google hits, not on the complete set. So a distinct number of more than 100 (give or take a few) means nothing negative, and in such a case the total number of Ghits should be taken into accunt as well (85,600 in this case). As an example; "Bill Gates" gives only 856 distinct Google hits, and "Jimbo Wales" gives 483 distinct ones. Fram 18:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment That's a fair point and Ghits shouldn't be determining the outcome anyway.   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  19:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: That's incorrect. One book published and at least 5 to appear, not including short story compilations. ~ DarkCryst 23:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment AfD guidelines ask editors who have a vested interest in the article, to say so openly. Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  23:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Apologies, I should have made my connection to the article clearer. I'll amend my vote to an abstain to reflect that. DarkCryst 05:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The Lulu Blooker Prize is the brainchild of the folks at Lulu.com. So it's a self-publishing marketer's invention.  So, in my view,  the only rationale to keep could be multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews.  What I've seen look like very standard publisher-inspired ones but perhaps I'm looking in the wrong places.  Any pointers to convincing reviews will be appreciated.  Maybe she's the next Stephen King and I'm totally missing the point :-)  P.S. I've finally found the deletion review and find I'm just repeating what Rossami said.  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  19:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The Blooker Prize is sponsored by Lulu.com, but features work not mentioned or published by Lulu.com. Cherie Priest for example has nothing to do with Lulu.com apart from winning the Fiction Blooker. The Blooker is just as much of a genuine award as any other. The only thing against it is that it is a new award about an emerging, rapidly growing, area of work.~ DarkCryst 21:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Publishers Weekly, KLIATT and Kirkus are perfectly acceptable reviewers, not "publisher-inspired". ~ trialsanderrors 01:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Published under a major label. Good enough for me. Resolute 03:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above comments, unique Google hits are extremely unreliable indicators of notability. RFerreira 18:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Abstain (former Strong Keep, amended to reflect connection to article.) Aside from the previous reasons and strong amazon sales, the author has been mentioned by Warren Ellis and BoingBoing. Also has many notable authors reviewing her work, and large traditional media reviews. Additionally she has many books pending release, and one in the next couple of months, that will just lead to someone recreating the article ~ DarkCryst 20:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep appears to pass WP:BIO. Whilst her books are not bestsellers, they appear to have had multiple independent reviews per Amazon search, and rank in the low hundred-thousandsth. Ohconfucius 04:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: as the original article author, I in good faith created an article about an up and coming author who is well known in her field. I'd love to see the point of all this deletion, but are we really hunting for hard drive space this desperately that the opinion that the work isn't of note or is not mainstream enough really a good argument?  My vote is keep (or abstain, as you like)...but you'll obviously do as you like. rethought 17:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.